Here's to the extinction of the AOO

[Henry]

Maybe he forgot to mention these new players were his children?

No idea, but I'm guessing not -- he was talking in reference to why they changed it for Star Wars.

 

[Doug McCrae]

AoO are one of my favourite 3e rules. They add immensely both to verisimilitude and to the tactical feel of the game. Combatants with reach or long weapons *should* get a first strike in. Casting a spell in a melee *should* put you at a disadvantage. Getting round an opponent *should* be difficult.

We seldom use a battle grid and my group has no problem with them whatsoever.

The one difficulty I can see is that moving out of a threatened square, rather than into one, is a rather counterintuitive way of doing it.

And it definitely isn't what slows combat down the most. That would, of course, be grappling.

 

[el-remmen]

My groups have been using a form of AoO since 2E days, so it never seemed like a weird new 3E thing to us. So obviously, I like them. I have never found them to "immobilize" combats because I enjoy craft dynamic and dramatic combat scenes that often necessitate movement and the risk of AoOs.

As for the counting boxes things that someone brought up, we have a table rule that if you count a character has moved to that box. You can continue counting in any direction you want, but no take-backs.* We also rule that you choose a target for a spell or missile weapon before counting the range. You can choose to not cast or shoot after, but you lose your action.

We call it our "fog of war" rules. . . and it makes for a hell of a lot of fun.


* The DM is exempt from this rule, and can do the occasional take-back because of the sheer number of combatants he has to run makes it more likely for mistakes to happen. But even then, I usually let even my own "mistakes" stand.

 

[Wiseblood]

Attack of opportunities were fine - in most instances they rarely cropped up, and most players knew the rules well enough to not to something that would evoke them. From that perspective, it was like they never existed in the first place.

Now, that dragon article, is going to make everything worse. It was one thing having a single mechanic that governs 'immediate' action in the attack of opportunity, but that article makes it sound like there will be dozens of different things granting immediate actions under dozens of different circumstances. IMO, that's bad. If that dragon article is the way to go, bring back the AoO anytime.

Pinotage

I for one say good riddance to AoO's.
If it was like they never existed, why did they exist? I'm not sure if you are defending them. But it looks like you will not miss them. Until I see 4e's mechanics I'll reserve my judgement of them. Though to be honest, immediate actions do not appear to be an improvement.

 

[Baby Samurai]

That would, of course, be grappling.

While I agree grappling is clunky, I still don't see why so many people have a problem with it.

Now a creature with Improved Grab taking the -20 option and how many grapple checks and other attacks it can make…

 

[Baby Samurai]

I for one say good riddance to AoO's.
If it was like they never existed, why did they exist?

When you fled from an enemy in 1st edition you provoked an attack…

 

[BryonD]

In fact, I STRONGLY suspect (based on side-comments by designers) that this is exactly what will happen. I dislike it, myself, but Owen KC Stephens from Star Wars RPG said he's actually had new players WALK from the TABLE when trying to teach them the "1,2,1,2" thing.

heh

I can certainly understand how that would be seen as a big negative if you are trying to sell a product. But it also seems a real knee-jerk reaction. I mean, seriously, if people are walking away from the table over 1,2,1,2, then it seems pretty much certain that there are other things in D&D that are going to be more than they want to deal with. Not everyone with a pulse is a potential gamer. I can understand not liking it and I don't much care either way. But if it is a deal breaker then any effort made to market to you is probably a poor investment.

 

[Dragonblade]

No idea, but I'm guessing not -- he was talking in reference to why they changed it for Star Wars.

Anyone who walks because they can't grasp 1,2,1,2, IS a child in my opinion.

 

[el-remmen]

In fact, I STRONGLY suspect (based on side-comments by designers) that this is exactly what will happen. I dislike it, myself, but Owen KC Stephens from Star Wars RPG said he's actually had new players WALK from the TABLE when trying to teach them the "1,2,1,2" thing.

Ha! In my group we make it even harder for ourselves out of habit (again this is something we did back in 2E days so we were used to the rule), but count, "One and a half, three, four and a half, six, etc. . ."

 

[Pinotage]

I for one say good riddance to AoO's.
If it was like they never existed, why did they exist? I'm not sure if you are defending them. But it looks like you will not miss them. Until I see 4e's mechanics I'll reserve my judgement of them. Though to be honest, immediate actions do not appear to be an improvement.

I've never had a problem with them. They were in most cases justified and realistic. The mechanic may not always have been the best though. I'm was just pointing out that they didn't crop up that frequently that they would slow the game down. The game needed them, and they weren't frequent, so that's a good thing. The whole immediate action thing sounds like a nightmare, but I'll reserve judgement until I see what's in 4e. And I hope it's not fantasy superheroes taking immediate actions each round!

Pinotage